You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com> on 2013/06/06 05:43:23 UTC
CC-BY in context
Hi Dennis,
The secret issue that Luis Villa and I are discussing that led to his blog post is the CC-BY license, which has been recommended by some W3C members for use with the new W3C HTML 6 Recommendation. We’re discussing that issue within W3C, but it certainly isn’t appropriate for me to bring that discussion here.
However -- To the extent that Apache or anyone else implements such W3C Recommendations, we may be depending upon rights granted under CC-BY.
Is the CC-BY license Category A or not? If not, why not?
/Larry
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:55 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
@Larry,
That’s interesting although I think this one may be more relevant to some things that go on around here:
< http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/>.
And thanks for the link to Luis. If my blog reader ever works again, I’m subscribed [;<).
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
I promised to send this link to the list:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/06/05/forking-and-standards-why-the-right-to-fork-can-be-pro-social/
I don’t necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is worth thinking seriously about. :-)
RE: CC-BY in context
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Along with training myself to stamp out “relicensing” wherever I encounter it, it is also fascinating to me that the ASF iCLA is transitive in effect. The key phrase:
"You hereby grant to the Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the
Foundation a [... copyright license to ...]
Your Contributions and such derivative works."
There's a similar "and to recipients of software distributed by the Foundation" clause in the Grant of Patent License section.
The SGA is not so transitive.
- Dennis
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 05:16 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: CC-BY in context
[ … ]
As I’ve argued before, “relicensing” is a bogus word; nobody can relicense someone else’s work. As for “sublicensing,” which I think you meant, that’s not necessary if *everyone* gets an identical license directly from the copyright owner, which is how CC-BY works. (FWIW, that is also how patent licenses from IBM are often worded, without sublicensing allowed.)
/Larry
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CC-BY in context
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 10, 2013, at 10:16 AM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Regardless of what word you want to use, the effect should be that that I
>> can implement the specification and distribute that implementation under my
>> own license, even if I have to copy a schema or DTD into my code. That
>> means that I can distribute that schema or DTD under my own license.
>
> It seems to me that we are well into a hypothetical scenario that is
> unlikely to affect the ASF or any of our licensees.
>
> For starters, the Creative Commons folks themselves don't recommend
> CC-By for software:
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F
>
> For this reason, discussions within the W3C about new licenses have
> tried to make it clarify the situation. An example (from 2011) can be
> found in the "option 1" box here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#licenses
>
> The license referred to in final bullet can be found here:
>
> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
>
> Finally, the way in which software produced by the ASF makes use of
> HTML is fundamentally different than the much more tightly coupled way
> in which software produced by the Mozilla Foundation implements HTML.
> The Mozilla Foundation has previously determined that CC-By is not
> compatible with their current license:
>
> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html#Licenses_Compatible_with_the_MPL
>
> I personally support efforts by Mozilla to ensure that W3C HTML
> specifications are not licensed in a way that prevent the Mozilla
> Foundation from releasing software products that implement HTML under
> the license of their choice. To the extent that they are successful,
> the less likely it is that either the ASF or our licensees with have a
> problem.
Great background information. Thanks Sam!
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: CC-BY in context
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> Regardless of what word you want to use, the effect should be that that I
> can implement the specification and distribute that implementation under my
> own license, even if I have to copy a schema or DTD into my code. That
> means that I can distribute that schema or DTD under my own license.
It seems to me that we are well into a hypothetical scenario that is
unlikely to affect the ASF or any of our licensees.
For starters, the Creative Commons folks themselves don't recommend
CC-By for software:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#Can_I_apply_a_Creative_Commons_license_to_software.3F
For this reason, discussions within the W3C about new licenses have
tried to make it clarify the situation. An example (from 2011) can be
found in the "option 1" box here:
http://www.w3.org/2011/03/html-license-options.html#licenses
The license referred to in final bullet can be found here:
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231
Finally, the way in which software produced by the ASF makes use of
HTML is fundamentally different than the much more tightly coupled way
in which software produced by the Mozilla Foundation implements HTML.
The Mozilla Foundation has previously determined that CC-By is not
compatible with their current license:
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/license-policy.html#Licenses_Compatible_with_the_MPL
I personally support efforts by Mozilla to ensure that W3C HTML
specifications are not licensed in a way that prevent the Mozilla
Foundation from releasing software products that implement HTML under
the license of their choice. To the extent that they are successful,
the less likely it is that either the ASF or our licensees with have a
problem.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: CC-BY in context
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 06/06/2013 08:16:01 PM:
> Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> > I think that if the specification includes code artifacts
> > (e.g., schema, DTDs) that are intended to be copied into
> > implementations unchanged, it would be helpful if the author
> > clearly stated that this was permissible w/o requiring any
> > particular outbound license.
>
> Do you have a good definition for “code artifacts”?
Well, the one in the sentence is pretty good . . . text that is intended to
be copied verbatim into an implementation of the specification. That's to
be compared with most specification text where the implementer is suppose
to read the text, understand it, then write code that does it. See the
difference?
> In an email to
> Luis Villa on another list where I intended to be both ironic and
> humorous, I pointed out that the following is an important
> specification for quantum mechanics.
>
> [image removed]
>
> This version of the Schrodinger equation is beautiful enough to be
> copyrightable, and I presume it can be copied into software and its
> documentation (a derivative work?) even if it seems incomprehensible
> to non-physicists. Will this portion of a specification satisfy your
> definition of “code artifact”?
Almost anything "can" be copied into documentation. The question is whether
you can implement the specification WITHOUT copying into the implementation
somewhere. A point that should be self-obvious is if you provide a
specification under a license which permits the text of the specification
document and accompanying materials to be licensed by implementers to their
customers ONLY under specified terms, there is a possible problem. If, in
the act of implementing that specification, you MUST copy certain text
verbatim into the implementation, and if there is any copyrightable
expression in that text, you've effectively specified the outbound license
as well.
>
> > While its perfectly appropriate for the Specification itself,
> > the code artifacts would be better licensed under a license
> > which allows relicensing.
>
> As I’ve argued before, “relicensing” is a bogus word; nobody can
> relicense someone else’s work. As for “sublicensing,” which I think
> you meant, that’s not necessary if *everyone* gets an identical
> license directly from the copyright owner, which is how CC-BY works.
> (FWIW, that is also how patent licenses from IBM are often worded,
> without sublicensing allowed.)
>
Regardless of what word you want to use, the effect should be that that I
can implement the specification and distribute that implementation under my
own license, even if I have to copy a schema or DTD into my code. That
means that I can distribute that schema or DTD under my own license.
There's nothing in copyright law, itself, that requires me to pass on all
of the rights that I've received from a licensor, that is, unless the
license I received specifies that I have to do so (e.g., the GPL and,
apparently, CC-BY).
Jeff
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
RE: CC-BY in context
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> I think that if the specification includes code artifacts
> (e.g., schema, DTDs) that are intended to be copied into
> implementations unchanged, it would be helpful if the author
> clearly stated that this was permissible w/o requiring any
> particular outbound license.
Do you have a good definition for “code artifacts”? In an email to Luis Villa on another list where I intended to be both ironic and humorous, I pointed out that the following is an important specification for quantum mechanics.
cid:image001.png@01CE61CC.9535D980
This version of the Schrodinger equation is beautiful enough to be copyrightable, and I presume it can be copied into software and its documentation (a derivative work?) even if it seems incomprehensible to non-physicists. Will this portion of a specification satisfy your definition of “code artifact”?
> While its perfectly appropriate for the Specification itself,
> the code artifacts would be better licensed under a license
> which allows relicensing.
As I’ve argued before, “relicensing” is a bogus word; nobody can relicense someone else’s work. As for “sublicensing,” which I think you meant, that’s not necessary if *everyone* gets an identical license directly from the copyright owner, which is how CC-BY works. (FWIW, that is also how patent licenses from IBM are often worded, without sublicensing allowed.)
/Larry
From: Jeffrey Thompson [mailto:jthom@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 4:54 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: RE: CC-BY in context
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 06/06/2013 03:57:49 PM:
> There is a difficult debate underway (in court and in academic
> circles) whether the implementation of a specification in software
> is a derivative work of the specification. Some say yes, some say
> no, some say sometimes. In any event, will CC-BY give us the
> permission we want -- even if we don't think we need it -- to
> implement that specification?
Regardless of the answer to the question whether I need a copyright license to read your specification and write code that implements the system / algorithm / interface / whatever described in that specification, I think that if the specification includes code artifacts (e.g., schema, DTDs) that are intended to be copied into implementations unchanged, it would be helpful if the author clearly stated that this was permissible w/o requiring any particular outbound license.
While someone could argue that no license is required, why have the argument? As we've previously discussed, I think CC-BY has a problem there. While its perfectly appropriate for the Specification itself, the code artifacts would be better licensed under a license which allows relicensing.
Just my 2 cents.
Jeff
>
> Notice please that the existing W3C document license unambiguously
> *doesn't* give us the right to create derivative works, even in
> software. Many implementers, and our Category A list, ignore that sad fact.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:33 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: CC-BY in context
>
> Um oh, so an example of a permissive license on a W3C specification
> might be CC-by.
>
> Well, yes, this is not the place to deliberate on the wisdom of that.
>
> On the other hand, I don’t see how such a decision is generally any
> concern of an *implementer* of the specification (as opposed to a
> modifier of the specification).
>
> There is a Category-B-like case though. A W3C specification might
> provide a schema, a machine-processable code. (This has come up
> with schemas related to OASIS specifications, since the copyright on
> those files is typically one of those “all rights reserved” puppies.)
>
> Sometime those schemas, as data, are employed in the building of
> software in an ASF Project (or elsewhere). There is then the
> question of their retention in the SVN or their access as external
> dependencies (which would be OK for CC-BY whether it is an “A” or
> not, but maybe iffy in an “all rights reserved” situation.) A
> simple practical example is a validator that uses the schema as part
> of its operation.
>
> It is also the case that, for quite practical reasons, one might
> want to make mechanical use of a derivative of the schema as
> provided in conjunction with some specification. It would make no
> sense to contribute customizations “up-stream” because the standard
> is not impacted, it serves a practical purpose for an
> implementation. A more-sophisticated validator might employ such a
> beast using a flavor of the schema that is marked-up in some
> application-relevant manner. I can think of other instances. Now,
> for a license-considerate open-source effort, where can that
> derivative be stashed and how is it to be identified, license-wise?
>
> I know that’s a hypothetical (although I know of specific cases).
> I’m not seeking an answer. It is the question that is interesting.
>
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
Re: CC-BY in context
Posted by Kevan Miller <ke...@gmail.com>.
On Jun 6, 2013, at 7:53 PM, Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 06/06/2013 03:57:49 PM:
>
> > There is a difficult debate underway (in court and in academic
> > circles) whether the implementation of a specification in software
> > is a derivative work of the specification. Some say yes, some say
> > no, some say sometimes. In any event, will CC-BY give us the
> > permission we want -- even if we don't think we need it -- to
> > implement that specification?
>
> Regardless of the answer to the question whether I need a copyright license to read your specification and write code that implements the system / algorithm / interface / whatever described in that specification, I think that if the specification includes code artifacts (e.g., schema, DTDs) that are intended to be copied into implementations unchanged, it would be helpful if the author clearly stated that this was permissible w/o requiring any particular outbound license.
>
> While someone could argue that no license is required, why have the argument? As we've previously discussed, I think CC-BY has a problem there. While its perfectly appropriate for the Specification itself, the code artifacts would be better licensed under a license which allows relicensing.
FYI, we have an exception for Category B licenses to handle this very case (see the next to last paragraph):
http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-b
--kevan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: CC-BY in context
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Lawrence Rosen" <lr...@rosenlaw.com> wrote on 06/06/2013 03:57:49 PM:
> There is a difficult debate underway (in court and in academic
> circles) whether the implementation of a specification in software
> is a derivative work of the specification. Some say yes, some say
> no, some say sometimes. In any event, will CC-BY give us the
> permission we want -- even if we don't think we need it -- to
> implement that specification?
Regardless of the answer to the question whether I need a copyright license
to read your specification and write code that implements the system /
algorithm / interface / whatever described in that specification, I think
that if the specification includes code artifacts (e.g., schema, DTDs) that
are intended to be copied into implementations unchanged, it would be
helpful if the author clearly stated that this was permissible w/o
requiring any particular outbound license.
While someone could argue that no license is required, why have the
argument? As we've previously discussed, I think CC-BY has a problem
there. While its perfectly appropriate for the Specification itself, the
code artifacts would be better licensed under a license which allows
relicensing.
Just my 2 cents.
Jeff
>
> Notice please that the existing W3C document license unambiguously
> *doesn't* give us the right to create derivative works, even in
> software. Many implementers, and our Category A list, ignore that sad
fact.
>
> /Larry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:33 PM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
> Subject: RE: CC-BY in context
>
> Um oh, so an example of a permissive license on a W3C specification
> might be CC-by.
>
> Well, yes, this is not the place to deliberate on the wisdom of that.
>
> On the other hand, I don’t see how such a decision is generally any
> concern of an *implementer* of the specification (as opposed to a
> modifier of the specification).
>
> There is a Category-B-like case though. A W3C specification might
> provide a schema, a machine-processable code. (This has come up
> with schemas related to OASIS specifications, since the copyright on
> those files is typically one of those “all rights reserved” puppies.)
>
> Sometime those schemas, as data, are employed in the building of
> software in an ASF Project (or elsewhere). There is then the
> question of their retention in the SVN or their access as external
> dependencies (which would be OK for CC-BY whether it is an “A” or
> not, but maybe iffy in an “all rights reserved” situation.) A
> simple practical example is a validator that uses the schema as part
> of its operation.
>
> It is also the case that, for quite practical reasons, one might
> want to make mechanical use of a derivative of the schema as
> provided in conjunction with some specification. It would make no
> sense to contribute customizations “up-stream” because the standard
> is not impacted, it serves a practical purpose for an
> implementation. A more-sophisticated validator might employ such a
> beast using a flavor of the schema that is marked-up in some
> application-relevant manner. I can think of other instances. Now,
> for a license-considerate open-source effort, where can that
> derivative be stashed and how is it to be identified, license-wise?
>
> I know that’s a hypothetical (although I know of specific cases).
> I’m not seeking an answer. It is the question that is interesting.
>
Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -7164
RE: CC-BY in context
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
[off-list]
> On the other hand, I don’t see how such a decision is generally any
> concern of an *implementer* of the specification (as opposed to a
> modifier of the specification).
There is a difficult debate underway (in court and in academic circles) whether the implementation of a specification in software is a derivative work of the specification. Some say yes, some say no, some say sometimes. In any event, will CC-BY give us the permission we want -- even if we don't think we need it -- to implement that specification?
Notice please that the existing W3C document license unambiguously *doesn't* give us the right to create derivative works, even in software. Many implementers, and our Category A list, ignore that sad fact.
/Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 9:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: CC-BY in context
Um oh, so an example of a permissive license on a W3C specification might be CC-by.
Well, yes, this is not the place to deliberate on the wisdom of that.
On the other hand, I don’t see how such a decision is generally any concern of an *implementer* of the specification (as opposed to a modifier of the specification).
There is a Category-B-like case though. A W3C specification might provide a schema, a machine-processable code. (This has come up with schemas related to OASIS specifications, since the copyright on those files is typically one of those “all rights reserved” puppies.)
Sometime those schemas, as data, are employed in the building of software in an ASF Project (or elsewhere). There is then the question of their retention in the SVN or their access as external dependencies (which would be OK for CC-BY whether it is an “A” or not, but maybe iffy in an “all rights reserved” situation.) A simple practical example is a validator that uses the schema as part of its operation.
It is also the case that, for quite practical reasons, one might want to make mechanical use of a derivative of the schema as provided in conjunction with some specification. It would make no sense to contribute customizations “up-stream” because the standard is not impacted, it serves a practical purpose for an implementation. A more-sophisticated validator might employ such a beast using a flavor of the schema that is marked-up in some application-relevant manner. I can think of other instances. Now, for a license-considerate open-source effort, where can that derivative be stashed and how is it to be identified, license-wise?
I know that’s a hypothetical (although I know of specific cases). I’m not seeking an answer. It is the question that is interesting.
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 08:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: CC-BY in context
Hi Dennis,
The secret issue that Luis Villa and I are discussing that led to his blog post is the CC-BY license, which has been recommended by some W3C members for use with the new W3C HTML 6 Recommendation. We’re discussing that issue within W3C, but it certainly isn’t appropriate for me to bring that discussion here.
However -- To the extent that Apache or anyone else implements such W3C Recommendations, we may be depending upon rights granted under CC-BY.
Is the CC-BY license Category A or not? If not, why not?
/Larry
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:55 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
@Larry,
That’s interesting although I think this one may be more relevant to some things that go on around here:
< http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/>.
And thanks for the link to Luis. If my blog reader ever works again, I’m subscribed [;<).
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
I promised to send this link to the list:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/06/05/forking-and-standards-why-the-right-to-fork-can-be-pro-social/
I don’t necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is worth thinking seriously about. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: CC-BY in context
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
Um oh, so an example of a permissive license on a W3C specification might be CC-by.
Well, yes, this is not the place to deliberate on the wisdom of that.
On the other hand, I don’t see how such a decision is generally any concern of an *implementer* of the specification (as opposed to a modifier of the specification).
There is a Category-B-like case though. A W3C specification might provide a schema, a machine-processable code. (This has come up with schemas related to OASIS specifications, since the copyright on those files is typically one of those “all rights reserved” puppies.)
Sometime those schemas, as data, are employed in the building of software in an ASF Project (or elsewhere). There is then the question of their retention in the SVN or their access as external dependencies (which would be OK for CC-BY whether it is an “A” or not, but maybe iffy in an “all rights reserved” situation.) A simple practical example is a validator that uses the schema as part of its operation.
It is also the case that, for quite practical reasons, one might want to make mechanical use of a derivative of the schema as provided in conjunction with some specification. It would make no sense to contribute customizations “up-stream” because the standard is not impacted, it serves a practical purpose for an implementation. A more-sophisticated validator might employ such a beast using a flavor of the schema that is marked-up in some application-relevant manner. I can think of other instances. Now, for a license-considerate open-source effort, where can that derivative be stashed and how is it to be identified, license-wise?
I know that’s a hypothetical (although I know of specific cases). I’m not seeking an answer. It is the question that is interesting.
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 08:43 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: CC-BY in context
Hi Dennis,
The secret issue that Luis Villa and I are discussing that led to his blog post is the CC-BY license, which has been recommended by some W3C members for use with the new W3C HTML 6 Recommendation. We’re discussing that issue within W3C, but it certainly isn’t appropriate for me to bring that discussion here.
However -- To the extent that Apache or anyone else implements such W3C Recommendations, we may be depending upon rights granted under CC-BY.
Is the CC-BY license Category A or not? If not, why not?
/Larry
From: Dennis E. Hamilton [mailto:dennis.hamilton@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 1:55 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org; lrosen@rosenlaw.com
Subject: RE: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
@Larry,
That’s interesting although I think this one may be more relevant to some things that go on around here:
< http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/01/27/taking-post-open-source-seriously-as-a-statement-about-copyright-law/>.
And thanks for the link to Luis. If my blog reader ever works again, I’m subscribed [;<).
From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 12:33 PM
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Cc: Lawrence Rosen
Subject: FW: FW: updating w.a.o/legal/resolved for Creative Commons Attribution
I promised to send this link to the list:
http://tieguy.org/blog/2013/06/05/forking-and-standards-why-the-right-to-fork-can-be-pro-social/
I don’t necessarily agree with all of this, but everything Luis writes is worth thinking seriously about. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org